Jump to content

Talk:Batman in film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 80.5.140.139 (talk) at 20:04, 24 December 2007 (The two serials and the 1966 film). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Batman: Darknight?

IGN says, "Man-Bat and Scarecrow were actually the villains in the Lee Shapiro and Stephen Wise script for Batman: Darknight." Might be something to follow up. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 04:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What to include in this article

There are a number of approaches that could be taken with this article. When I started this, I had only the 1989 live-action film and the following live-action films in mind. I don't really oppose the addition of the 1966 film, though I don't really see it as part of the franchise that has been established by Warner Bros. It's not really part of the existing five films, and its box office or critical reaction does not seem comparable to the films that followed. I was reading Ebert's reviews of the WB Batman films last night, and he compares only these, not the 1966 film or the film serials. In addition, I'm not sure how the animated films can work in here? I guess it's more work than I expected, since I was planning to trace the path of WB's projects from 1989 to 2008, including the failed ones. Feel free to share your perspective here. Maybe we're better off calling this Batman films or Batman theatrical films? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 19:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about we work on your initial approach first. It's going to be hard enough finding good, reliable information on all these failed projects, and the development of the ones that worked. Afterward, we can step back and say "hmm, maybe we can add the other films too", or, "eh...it really wouldn't help the article, only hinder it".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nolan's films?

Batman Begins and the Dark Knight are conspicuously absent here. I've got an idea. The films from the eighties and nineties seem to follow the same continuity, but the 1966 film, Nolan's films and the animated films each follow their own continuity. How about we just make this article about the orginal film series? A gx7

Split

I've split the content of the article, since it didn't make sense to say that every Batman film was part of the same "series". Don't worry, most of the work from this one has been salvaged and actually expanded. A gx7 04:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should wait till others have had a chance to actually voice their opinions, instead of taking it upon yourself to split the article into different articles (which is actually the antithesis of why this article was created in the first place). This article actually brought those separate topics together, as they became breeding grounds for extraneous, unencyclopedic, original research.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the title says it's a "series", but its not. Begins was a complete reboot. The new Spider-Man films have their own collective article, why shouldn't the new Batman series? It doesn't make sense to put the old one and the new one together if the studio made them deliberately separate. A gx7 04:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because there is no "old" Spider-Man series. That series might have had a couple television movies, but not feature films. Batman has had lots of feature films, in different continuities, and eras in time. This article is meant to be about Batman's theatrical history, not one specific series. There is Nolan information here (see the box office, reviews, and casting sections). We just haven't put in basic info in, like the "Burton/Shumacher" section has (which is incomplete itself). This article was a compilation of several weak articles (most notably those "never to be made" films).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not considering what "series" means. Here's the Wiktionary definition:
series (Noun)
1. A number of things that follow on one after the other or are connected one after the other.
2. A television or radio program which consists of several episodes that are broadcast in regular intervals
3. (analysis) The sum of the terms of a sequence.
Mask of the the Phantasm was a theatrical movie but was not part of the episodic sequence of the Burton films. Begins also goes back to the beginning and therefore not sequential; it is part of a different series. So if you're going to make this article about a "series" it has to be a sequence of episodes that are connected. If you want to make it about the character's theatrical history then you should just call it that.A gx7 08:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually considering moving the article to Batman films. How about it, anyone? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 11:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Batman (feature films), otherwise you'd open up a can of worms with the animated stuff (and there are quite a few of those), and there isn't that much information on the animated movies.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a feature film would include Mask of the Phantasm. Is that what's desired? When I had this project in mind in the first place, I was thinking about the theatrical live-action films under Warner Bros. (Burton through Nolan). I didn't consider the other items like the serials, the film spin-off of the TV show, the animated films, et cetera. I'm fine with having these items included, but I have less of an interest in expanding them with attributable citations. I had this in mind as a place to include Burton and Schumacher's films, then the attempted projects in between, then Nolan's films. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 13:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) You could do Batman (Live-action films) or Batman (Live-action feature films), as the latter would probably exclude the serials.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would Batman (Warner Bros. films) or something on that level be too weird? I mean, in the real-world context, focusing on a company's theatrical production of a franchise seems appropriate. There could also be a Batman (animated films) article, but that doesn't seem as appropriate of an "umbrella" because it seems odd to put them together on the account that they're animated with very little other similarities. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 13:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that Batman vs Dracula film, Batman himself was voiced by the same guy in all the films. I think the continuity of those films was intertwined with the animated series, maybe not, but I think.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you forgetting Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker? Also, it just seems appropriate to have the Burton/Schumacher/Nolan films in their own article because they're part of the Warner Bros. franchise. Box office analysis usually looks at just these films, and reviews compare the films among each other and nothing outside of them. I don't know if we need stronger citation to support this preferred focus by the industry. The point of this article was to reflect the real-world process of the Batman property under Warner Bros. -- the initial run, the attempted restarts, the successful reboot, and the critical perspective of the theatrical live-action films under WB. I don't really think that the other items (serials, animated films) have a place here. They're listed at Batman in popular media, and this article is more of a "study" of Batman films linked by the factors I mentioned above. I suggest excluding the films that aren't part of the industry perspective, but provide a top link to where they could be found. Any takers? Of course, we still need to think of an appropriate article title. Here's a new one: Batman live-action films (Warner Bros.). This is hard, haha. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 13:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin Conroy voiced Bruce Wayne in the film. ;) He just didn't voice the youngly that took over the Batman role. If you think limiting it to Warner Bros. films is best, ok. We don't have box office info for the earlier films, nor reviews, so really their information, currently, is limited to just a plot and some original research.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, we'll see what A gx7 has to say. Maybe he has a better idea of what we could do. No rush here. However, though, do we really need all the uncited information in Batman Forever right now? It seems like a backslide to the past. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had this idea that our "snippets" for each film could possibly look like a "Featured article of the day", where you just use the lead information and do a "(more...)" at the end, like the FAoTD.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with that. What are some sections we could build in this article? Surely there's some significant coverage about how the Batman film franchise slowly went bust. I'll see if there's anything in the subscription databases. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 13:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the word you guys need for this article is "franchise". You could call it Batman theatrical film franchise or just drop "theatrical" if you wanted to include the non-cinema ones like Return of the Joker. Would that describe the sort of content you want to put in here?
As for the two main film series (the 89-97 one and the reboot one), I wanted to have a separate article on each: Burton/Schumacher Batman film series and Reboot Batman film series. What do you think? A gx7 14:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that they should co-exist because the relevant encyclopedic content for these films would be the real-world activities of how Warner Bros. had these two runs and had a stalled period in between them. I think it's an unnecessary split because the intention was for the series of films under Warner Bros., not a series in the Batman universe's continuity. The appearance, decline, and rebirth of the franchise should be explained in one place. Explicit production detail for each film would obviously belong to each film article. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 14:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an article about the franchise and not any one of the series, then it should be moved to Batman film franchise. As I established above, the content of this article doesn't meet the definition of "series". A gx7 10:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media perspective

The above links show an "umbrella" of the theatrical films. The Numbers and Box Office Mojo actually list Mask of the Phantasm, where AMG doesn't. I wouldn't oppose the inclusion of Mask of the Phantasm. Does anyone know of any other prominent film sites that may list the Batman films like the sites have done? I've checked Rotten Tomatoes, but couldn't find anything... —Erik (talkcontrib) - 13:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically, even the animated films are WB's. So, depending on the title of the article, it might fall in with the rest. We could always include a {{main}} link with that film. Did you check Metacritic or Yahoo Movies? (at work, so they won't come up for me).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess we can focus on WB's theatrical films, which would encompass Burton/Schumacher/Nolan's films and Phantasm? Also, I checked out your recommendations -- Neither have a straight-up list from what I could find. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 14:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's list the article as WB's movies, and we'll worry about Phantasm when we come to it. It's probably easier to focus on the film that have garnered more attention and fame (or infamy).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion

Having just gone through some editting and reverting with Alientraveller(Who i'd rather not disagree with), I'd like to discuss here the possibility of a broad overview at Batman Films, covering the serials and 1966, and then overview paragraphs for the later stuff, with links here (after moving to) Batman film series(Burton/Schumacher) and Batman film series(Nolan). The overview main page at Batman films can discuss the reboot in general terms, the BfsNolan can discuss specific interviews etc., and the BfsB/S pages can focus on the first four, and triumphant, and the stylistic choices (industrial/goth/techno/rave) of the four films. This would allow us to individually focus, but unite the entire Batman film history. We can even crosslink to the Dini/Timm animateds, and the new animateds, perhaps a Batman in animation page? ThuranX 18:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I first considered film series articles for superheroes, I had intended to have the Batman series be more of a Warner Bros. franchise article, which would stretch from Burton's approach to Nolan's approach, with everything in between. In terms of real-world context, I've thought this was the best approach in terms of proprietary rights because there is a path to follow from Burton's creation to the pits of hell with Schumacher's creations to the rough ascent to Nolan's current attempt. Perhaps it was narrow-minded, considering other Batman media such as the 1966 version and the Mask of the Phantasm, but the live-action WB films seem to have their own story, so to speak. In reviews of Batman Begins, comparisons were basically made to the Burton and Schumacher installments, and not toward any other incarnation. I don't know if the other incarnations need mention in this Batman film series article, which could admittedly be renamed, other than the See also section. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 19:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone get what I'm saying? :-P —Erik (talkcontrib) - 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unproduced script retelling

I have removed two sections dealing with Frank Miller's and Goldman's unproduced movie scripts. Each was overly detailed and full of Original Research, and their tones were jarringly different than every other section in the article. I believe the information they contained is best served by providing a link to external sources rather than detailing every item of these un-made movies in an article that deals with the movies that have been actually produced. Captain Infinity 15:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. There's been too much going on in this article for me to really step in and address the content. I figure that when/if people talk about the follow-up to The Dark Knight, I'll devote some energy to shaping this article to be like Spider-Man film series. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two serials and the 1966 film

Are these really necessary? I mean the Superman film series doesn't list "pre-film" stuff like this. I wanna know what other editors think. Also, I intend to "reshape" this article in the manner of the Spider-Man film series. That is a GA article and I want to make this article the same. Do you guys agree or disagree with deleting the serials and '66 film adaptation? I wanna hear your thoughts. Wildroot (talk - 14:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catwoman

Shouldn't the catwoman movie be mentioned in this article. In the movie, the main antagonist (Patience Phillips) who becomes Catwoman finds herself amongst a series of images of prior catwomen, including Pfeiffer's Batman Returns version of Selina Kyle. Does that not make this movie a sequal/spin-off of the90's batman series?